PDA

View Full Version : PC 12078 (t) (2) for in-state transfers


littlejake
10-09-2009, 12:08 PM
The 50 year old exemption from using a "California Dealer" to transfer long-guns (not AW's or with greater than 10 rnd capacity) is covered by section 12078 (t) (2).

I read this as applying to all eligible persons or entities who are not "California Dealers" -- and that term has special meaning -- a Dealer listed with Cal DOJ with a CFD number. (There are a few FFL-1's who have exemptions from being in the CFD system.)

Question: I believe that for in-state transfers, they must be made face-to-face -- even if both parties have a C&R license. And the launguage is such that unlicensed, eligible individuals, can, on an occasional basis, transfer a long-gun that meets the 50 year old criterion.

Opinions and Remarks please...

ke6guj
10-09-2009, 12:24 PM
Question: I believe that for in-state transfers, they must be made face-to-face -- even if both parties have a C&R license. And the launguage is such that unlicensed, eligible individuals, can, on an occasional basis, transfer a long-gun that meets the 50 year old criterion.

Opinions and Remarks please...I don't see that the transfer must be done face-to-face. I think a person could ship the long gun to another CA-resident anywhere in CA. CA law does not specify FTF, and federal law does not come into play in a intrastate transfer, unless one or more of the parties are 03FFLs.

Gunaria
10-09-2009, 12:37 PM
Please show me where is says in the PC that one can not use the USPS, UPS or Fed-Ex to ship a C&R long gun to another eligible/non-prohibit person within the state.

Guess what your not going to find it.

M. D. Van Norman
10-09-2009, 8:27 PM
For that matter, show me the section or clause that says one may not ship an eligible firearm in interstate commerce. :D

littlejake
10-11-2009, 9:07 AM
Please show me where is says in the PC that one can not use the USPS, UPS or Fed-Ex to ship a C&R long gun to another eligible/non-prohibit person within the state.

Guess what your not going to find it.

I didn't intend for this post to become contentious.. I apologize to fellow Cal-gunners for that. I do appreciate all who have posted opinions and respect them.

Of course one cannot find it in the Penal Code. All "laws" are not codified. There is Corpus Juris Secundum -- case law; and what CA DOJ interprets the law to be. The latter is where things become slippery. Without a letter of opinion from the CA AG, I prefer to take the safe road and not do what is not codified as permitted rather than take the position that if not forbidden it is allowed.

I know it is common practice to ship intrastate. 12078 (t) (2) also includes transfers between unlicensed persons. May they conduct a transfer that complies with 12078 (t) (2) that is not face-to-face?

Commercial carriers generally require that the recipient have an FFL of some type (1,2,3...)

Mssr. Eleganté
10-11-2009, 12:20 PM
Of course one cannot find it in the Penal Code. All "laws" are not codified. There is Corpus Juris Secundum -- case law; and what CA DOJ interprets the law to be. The latter is where things become slippery. Without a letter of opinion from the CA AG, I prefer to take the safe road and not do what is not codified as permitted rather than take the position that if not forbidden it is allowed.

Can you show us where it is "codified as permitted" that you can post in an online gun forum without submitting to a background check first?

Commercial carriers generally require that the recipient have an FFL of some type (1,2,3...)

FedEx "generally" requires it. But UPS and the USPS do not, unless the firearm is going between residents of two different States.

emcon5
10-11-2009, 12:39 PM
Can you show us where it is "codified as permitted" that you can post in an online gun forum without submitting to a background check first?

Isn't "codified as permitted" a contradiction in terms? Don't laws generally say what you can't do, rather than what you can?

Gunaria
10-11-2009, 11:34 PM
There is Corpus Juris Secundum -- case law; and what CA DOJ interprets the law to be.


I am interested to know what case this is. Can you please provide the case law itself, the docket number or whom verse the State of CA. where you are siting this from.

I am not trying to start a pissing contest or say you are wrong, I am right, but please if there is such info that you know of please share with us the source. Thanks.